Thanks for that article I love Scientific American. It really clarified the issue. I don't know if this is the exact study that Jefe was referring to, but if it is, then this article undercuts his argument. He spoke about cognitive reasoning and this article doesn't mention that at all, so it might not be what he was referring to. It also says that the relationship between reduced hippocampal size is a matter of stress and that the causal relationship between the reduction and religion is difficult to establish. But I'll let him comment on that.

I didn't insult or attack you so I'm really unsure what you meant by ad hom. If you think I attacked you somewhere, kindly point it out and I will either clarify my statement or issue an apology.

"1 - Where did I say anything about the frequency of hierarchical patriarchies vs egalitarian societies?"

The text I was referring to is quoted in my response. Both claims made in that statement are vague generalizations. There's nothing wrong with that and what I meant by foggy is that the claims needed to be more specific. As for frequency, the word "often" is generally assumed to mean more often than not. If that's not the implication you meant to give, then the statement becomes more foggy.
"2 - I can only assume that by "human history" you are referring to the
recorded history of patriarchal civilisations. If that is indeed the
case, then you're stating the obvious.

3 - By art, I can only assume you mean the collected works of
patriarchal civilisations and not the art of ancient or extant
egalitarian societies. If so, again, you're stating the obvious."

I meant all of human history for which we have evidence, including but not limited to, patriarchal societies.
"4 - Universally depicted as sad and pitiful? Yeah, you dug your own
grave on that one. I ain't touchin that with a ten foot pole."

I'm somewhat confused about this statement. Surely, if a rational woman reads my words she'll not presume that I am responsible for the art produced by people other than myself and whom were long dead before I was even born and, further go on to take that statement as some sort of insult against women. If I point out that black people used to be owned by white men, have my words made it so?
"Superstition is a dysfunction? Again. Show me something, anything, the APA has to say about it."

I didn't offer that the APA made the claim I made. I've merely used reason and evidence to come to a conclusion. Consequently, I don't depend on the US government when coming to conclusions about the safety of marijuana or the morality of prostitution. Reason and evidence tell quite a different story.

"Furthermore, how do you account for the THOUSANDS of superstitious cultures that thrive?"

Why do I need to account for them? I know they exist and I don't assert otherwise. That a society is successful does not indicate the absence of dysfunction. Success is a relative value judgement and a thief who is capable of sustaining himself through thievery can be said to be successful in his endeavors. That he harms others by being a successful thief indicates that his behavior is dysfunctional.

"What are the conclusions drawn from these brain scans, where were these scans taken and by whom?"

There have been hundreds of studies on the physical affects child abuse and religion have on the brain. A post above contains one link to a study on religion. You can also find about forty years worth of research on human societies and the affects of parenting and religion at The Institute for Psychohistory. The articles there contain detailed citations. The conclusions, as I've mentioned, are that abuse and religion cause atrophy to portions of the frontal lobe which are critical to reasoning. My conclusion is not that religion causes these changes but that the requisite childhood traumas associated with religion are their genesis.

"The logical fallacies in these three statements are staggering."

If that's indeed the case, I would much appreciate learning what fallacies have been committed and where so I can correct them and avoid committing them in the future.

What ever a large group of people decide is true is as true as any other form of truth.

Religion is as valid as science or at least in the States is most valid because a majority of the people think so.

So that if what ever society deems as true is as true as anything else then why argue? Because arguing only means that you are not following your own relativism. If you were truly a relativist then everybody is correct always.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

That was a superb example of the art of deflection. I leave you to it.

Hey, fst.

I think I understand a bit better now. Thank you for the clarification.

In my estimation, you're missing the larger point. Relativism does not suggest that everyone is correct (which should not be construed to mean that someone is). It suggests that what is considered true in one culture is not necessarily considered true in any other culture. It suggests that truth is not an absolute, but rather a mutable convention arrived at through the process of cultural evolution. Truth is adaptive, not objective. It's adaptiveness is specific to a given culture in a given temporal context and is not fixed. Where there is FLOW between cultures, truths will more often overlap. Where there is DRIFT, differences will collect and become more pronounced.

For example, Canadians think public health care is inviolable, Americans think it's a socialist plot to undermine the country. Neither position is correct and neither position will last forever (public health care is eroding in Canada and on the rise in the US). They're just ideological positions held by either group (speaking generally of course, because we know that not everyone in a given culture believes the same thing and in fact, no one believes exactly the same thing because we're all individuals).

So in the grand scheme of things, arguing when neither side is correct is kind of silly. I'm with you on that. But that's primarilly a product of the ubiquitous ideological notion of objective truth. The differences in beliefs are seen as zero sum. As in Highlander, there can be only one. (more on this after the video and quote)

But arguing points between people with differing beliefs has its place, just as dialogue between people with differing beliefs has its place.

Check out the conversation from 1:08-2:18

Quote:Because arguing only means that you are not following your own relativism. If you were truly a relativist then everybody is correct always.

This is the most common misunderstanding of relativism that I encounter. Being a relativist does not mean that you yourself cannot hold a position. Everyone is at all times both an agent of and a subject of ideology. We always have beliefs and hold things to be true. The only difference between the objectivist and the relativist, is that the objectivist believes that their ideology/beliefs/truths are THE TRUTH and that as a consequence, all others are necessarily wrong, while the relativist believes what they believe, but they understand that others may believe differently.

But ideas are memes. And memes compete for brains. So when opposing memes come into contact with one another, there will be conflict. But there's nothing inherently wrong with competition and conflict. It's an inevitability of social interaction and the basis of Darwinism. The issue is what happens after. Does it escalate? Do people try to win by destroying their competition? That's the real issue. If Jim believes in creationism and I believe in evolution, that's fine and normal. If I cut his head off, that's an issue. You and I having this friendly discussion about the differences of our beliefs is perfectly fine and frankly, healthy. We've been doing it a lot in the last few months, you and I, and I've been enjoying it precisely because we are respectful of one another. We have avoided demanding that the other change their position and have focused instead on gaining insight into what the other believes. It has been both pleasant and illuminating. You have my thanks.

I've always enjoyed the wisdom of The Hagakure:

The Hagakure Wrote:It is bad when one thing becomes two. One should not look for anything else in the Way of the Samurai. It is the same for anything that is called a Way. Therefore, it is inconsistent to hear something of the Way of Confucius or the Way of the Buddha, and say that is the Way of the Samurai. If one understands things in this manner, he should be able to hear about all Ways and be more and more in accord with his own.

"That was a superb example of the art of deflection. I leave you to it."

I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you consider leveling accusations with no explanation to be a productive means of interaction? I ask this because this is the third accusation you've leveled against me and this, in response to me requesting clarification of the first two.